EPHA made recommendations for actions that could be taken by 2030 to reduce health impacts and the costs of air pollution, and these were reflected in the options given in last week’s tightly contest poll.

Of the 530 respondents, 32 per cent agreed that air pollution could be combated by focussing on implementing measures in the worst affected areas, followed by the 31 per cent who think large diesel engine vehicles should be targeted.

Of the remaining vote, 18 per cent would like to bring forward the phase-out of new ICE cars to 2030; seven per cent want a ban on pre-2014 vehicles; and 12 per cent opted for the none of the above option, including Another Steve who said: “The government has a proven track record of saying a lot but doing little. If they were serious about the environment would they really be expanding Heathrow, supporting fracking, destroying public transport, dragging their feet on nuclear energy, and removing subsidies from renewables ? No real action will happen until the waves are lapping over Westminster.”

Nick Cole said: “Banning all ICE is futile. Our economy depends entirely on the free and easy movement of people and goods. Non-ICE is not fit for purpose except in niche inner-city environments and the infrastructure costs to sustain this elsewhere have not been considered.
Who is going to subsidise replacing our entire vehicle fleet of vehicles more than 4 years old?
Diesel engines are the only viable flexible power source for anything other than personal transport. Road transport already operates on tiny margins, anything imposed on them has a direct impact on the cost to the consumer of moving goods.”

“Wouldn’t it be better to reduce the number of journeys people take?” added Clive Gardner. “I’m sure a lot of people could work from home at a computer just as easily as sitting in an office at a computer. We need to reduce the number of cars on the road by reducing the need to travel.”

What do you think? Keep the conversation alive but be aware that comments are moderated. Please read our guidelines for comments content before submitting.

Banning pre 2014 cars would cost governments too much money in scrappage, wholesale ban without compensation would bring down governments. By all means bring forward the phase out but currently the UK and many other countries do not have a power infrastructure capable of supplying the extra power required. Big engine vehicles.. busses, trains, trucks this would raise transport costs and put prices up. Focusing on worst affected areas might just work.. but who decides, if left to government then it will be London and the South East.

Although these seem big ideas, these (& the government) seem to be tip-toeing around the elephant in the room, namely long-distance diesel vehicles a/ in their own right & b/ coming into built-up areas.
We should be looking at forcing long-distance goods transport onto non-[local]polluting electric transport, which in the foreseeable future means electrified railways, with fleets of much smaller electric trucks to move the goods from the railway end-points to the final destinations.

I voted to bring forward the ban on all ICE cars…It’s the most obvious elephant in the room. I won’t hold my breath. We used to put lead in our petrol because it made some powerful foreign petrochemical firms lots of money. To hell with the millions left brain damaged! Why do we prioritize the profits of the super wealthy over the health and survival of the poorest in society. It follows a pattern, unfortunately.

That would be very difficult to do by diktat. You’ll be please to know that birth rates are now falling behind death rates in most European countries. There are technological solutions to our pollution problems. No, there really are… But powerful interests stand to lose a lot, and governments are very pliable.

That is all very well for Europe – falling population plus stringent anti-pollution regulations. Problem is the rising populations in countries that want their go with rapid industrialisation which of course means more power generation and more vehicles.

The report concerned health costs in the European Union, rather than in industrialising nations which, as you say, often have severe air quality issues in their cities and resultant health problems. Air pollution from traffic in Asia, Africa and Latin America is unlikely to affect health in Europe.

Wouldn’t it be better to reduce the number of journeys people take, I’m sure a lot of people could work from home at a computer just as easily as sitting in an office at a computer. We need to reduce the number of cars on the road by reducing the need to travel.

“A special performance will take place […] by Munich-based art collective ‘pretty bloody simple’. The ‘Cloud Cyclist’ will ride a tall-bike installation that looks like a cloud. The performance aims to render air pollution visible by emitting soap bubbles and playing happy music where the air quality is good, or pumping out smoke and playing dark music where the air is polluted. Following the event the artist will cycle to the EU institutions”

If diesel is too heavily taxed then food costs go up, other fuel prices rise, public transport costs rise, rural economies fail (areas where there are many diesel vehicles but low congestion so low pollution) because the majority of transport infrastructure is diesel. Yes they could be replaced with electric vehicles but large transport fleet (trucks and busses) invest £100,000+ in each vehicle and like any capital investment it is costed over a life which may be 10 or 15 years. being forced to change too early could result in them going out of business, resulting in less transporters who then hold a monopoly and prices rise.

In the EPHA report it refers to premature deaths in Europe from 2013. Emission standards have moved on a bit since then with almost all new diesel engines being equipped with EGR and/or SCR systems to reduce NOx and DPF systems to reduce particulates. In fact a diesel engine with DPF is likely to produce less particulate emission than a DI petrol engine. (Do the general public even know if their petrol car is direct injected or port injected?).
Don’t simply jump on the anti diesel band waggon as that combustion system still has an important role to play in reducing CO2 emissions when compared to petrol engines. Also the brake thermal efficiency of a large engine is greater than that of a small one so don’t automatically hit diesel trucks and buses – I imagine everyone wants their goods transported as efficiently as possible.

Nobody appears to understand that,as yet motorcycles aren’t able to travel any kinds of distance via electricity so banning ALL ICE vehicles will cause many people transport issues. My motorcycles are both pre-2014 & both are used for pleasure only(so living in the UK,get used rarely as I don’t ride in cold/wet weather) I live near a large nuclear site which the workforce getting in/out causes severe congestion to a large area of the county due to previous government’s promises to upgrade the main route always failing to be made good(I’ve also just received yet another heap of correspondence re: consultation)If this upgrade is ever successfully implemented,EV vehicles are still going to struggle as the nearest motorway is over an hour away & likely needs recharged just getting out of the county from here.

I would like to see the published figures EPHA base their assertions on. I’m not denying traffic causes any illness at all, just questioning how much of a role air pollution plays – and how much traffic contributes to overall air pollution. First, if there _IS_ such a strong correlation between air quality and health why HAVEN’T we seen much improvement in respiratory disease rates over the past few decades, compared to the massive gains in air quality since 1970 (page 9 of the reference linked below) – and at a time cigarette smoking has reduced too, which OUGHT to have exaggerated health improvements?

Second, if the objective is to improve that proportion of respiratory health problems that ARE linked to pollution by improving air quality we should (a) identify what specific pollutants are causing the problem and (b) tackle the _major_ sources of these pollutants. I note the graphic on p.12 of the linked reference shows ‘domestic wood and coal burning’ to be responsible for THREE times the PM2.5 emissions of all road transport, so if we cut home wood and coal burning by one-third, that is presumably equivalent to all transport becoming zero-emission in particulates?

“The report concerned health costs in the European Union, rather than in industrialising nations which, as you say, often have severe air quality issues in their cities and resultant health problems. Air pollution from traffic in Asia, Africa and Latin America is unlikely to affect health in Europe”

That is all very well too Stuart but I am pretty sure all the “air” is connected and you are still ignoring my actual point. TOO MANY PEOPLE!!

The actions regulators should take to reduce health costs resulting from air pollution would be to promote individuals to wear pollution masks.https://cambridgemask.com/technology/
Banning the internal combustion engine only deals with part of the problem. Particulates would still remain a problem from brake, tyre and road wear.
A mask will not only significantly reduce the amount of particulates inhaled, but also remove potentially harmful gases and pathogens.

Despite all of the above, is what is mentioned below true?
I heard or read recently that China has built a power station in Serbia where they are burning rubber tyres as fuel.
Desperate measures for desperate people ? Global consequences?
Exploitation?
What should be done?

However, power stations that burn tyres do exist, and have done since the 1990s. It’s not a technology we’ve covered in The Engineer, but plant operators claim it to be non-hazardous and to even have some useful by-products. The largest plant in the world has a 90MW per day generation capacity.

I visited Elm Energy in Wolverhampton back in the 1990’s; it looked a decent operation to me. As well as producing electricity (straightforward steam turbine Rankine cycle) they recovered steel wire and carbon black from the tyres. They had some compliance issues (in a twist on 20 Cent’s point: it would be interesting to compare the emission limits Elm had to work to, compared to coal) and they closed, so I suppose in that sense the EA succeeded in reducing emissions from the plant … worn out tyres mostly go for cement kiln fuel in the UK now, I think

One simple contribution to emission-reduction would be a Public Information project ( remember them) such as “Clunk-Click” or “put that light aht ! ” to get drivers to turn off their engines unless they are actually moving. That would require no technological revolution but socially -applied would have a distinct influence on our attitude.
No legislation is effective unless socially-accepted.
A second would be to tax aircraft fuel properly. That may have the unfortunate effect of raising cheap fares to more than the price of a round in a London pub.
Third: invoke road-side emission-testing with strong sanctions.

Banning all ICE is futile. Our economy depends entirely on the free and easy movement of people and goods. Non-ICE is not fit for purpose except in niche inner-city environments and the infrastructure costs to sustain this elsewhere have not been considered.
Who is going to subsidise replacing our entire vehicle fleet of vehicles more then 4 years old?
Diesel engines are the only viable flexible power source for anything other than personal transport. Road transport already operates on tiny margins, anything imposed on them has a direct impact on the cost to the consumer of moving goods.

I votes none of the above.
I suspect that, in cities, other forms of pollution (such as wood burning) are a more important issue – see https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/feb/22/wood-diesel-indoor-stoves-cities-pollution — possibly double that of diesels) . And I believe modern diesels have improved significantly.
The idea of having local (electric) lorries sounds good and I do, personally, like the idea of having freight trains. But this assumes that railways can take all the heavy goods traffic; this would require the Rail Regulator to put in place technology for infrastructure (such as rapid transfer from/to lorries) – there is no sign of this; and, too, no sign of the required railway infrastructure being even considered – so much of the UK will still need long distance lorry transport. A good idea but requires government to commit its own rare resource (common sense)

What are the air pollutants responsible for adverse health effects? Page 6: “NOx 65% PM2.5 32%”

The study attempts to quantify health effects in financial terms (I don’t feel qualified to comment on the methodology, except to say that it appears detailed and cites references)

It examines three scenarios for health improvement between 2016 and 2030. The good news is, in ALL CASES air quality improves significantly, as do health outcomes. Without any ADDITIONAL measures, the oldest most polluting vehicles will be scrapped and new cleaner vehicles purchased, so the vehicle fleet steadily improves. The report then considers two more cases, a “low ambition scenario” and a “high ambition scenario”

None of the above, again.
The fact of the matter is that in todays society people need their cars to survive (eg. for work, shopping, basic transport) and with austerity the average person would probably struggle if they were forced to buy unproven/unfeasible electric cars or to get rid of their perfectly functioning ICE vehicles just to meet these suggested options. The same would go for our transport companies – who’s going to subsidise/fund the huge cost of replacing fleets of trucks and buses ?
And, concentrating on the worse affected areas seems to me to be missing the point and is akin to trying to nail jelly to the wall – tackle the problems not the symptoms !
Everyone wants to do what they can for the environment but where are the affordable alternatives to support a major switch ? They don’t exist and until they do these suggested options won’t go anywhere.
The government has a proven track record of saying a lot but doing little, if they were serious about the environment would they really be expanding Heathrow, supporting fracking, destroying public transport, dragging their feet on Nuclear energy and removing subsidies from renewables ? No real action will happen until the waves are lapping over Westminster.

I’m not sure targeting the motorist other than for extorting more tax would solve any issue.
I read a report recently that suggested that if all Diesel cars were banned over night it would not reduce the pollution in the towns by more than 10%.
Perhaps ban all ICE from city centres, phase out all but Euro 6 cars on the road in the next 5 years.
What about CO2 from petrol!

Most of the real issues have been overlooked as most of the major pollution is created by the rush to deliberately create congestion so councils can profit from it. City centres having traffic lights rephased to create congestion, roads being narrowed and entire lanes being taken out, introductions of mini islands where they are not needed, speed humps which cause vehicles to continually stop and start.

Politics and profit are the real issues as in most cases many councils have been caught out doing all of these things and it is largely ignored by the public, then of course we have councils looking for any way to turn a buck or two.

Many great strides cound be taken by the road planners themselves by designing road schemes which bypass city centres and actually keep traffic flowing instead of it continually stop starting and allowing them to flow freely which reduces the continual stop starting and bypassing city centres instead of driving through them.